梵網經菩薩戒本疏 5.147

5.147

Eighth, explaining the text: there are five [parts]: first, citing the fault to formally institute [the precept]; second, violating it directly breaches practice; third, citing the minor to illustrate the major; fourth, distinguishing the spiritual from the worldly; fifth, intentional violation constitutes an offense. In the first part, first regarding enmities against oneself, there are also two: anger refers to mental action, striking is based on bodily action. Speech arises along with both and is omitted rather than cited. If fully stated, one should say 'retaliating against revilement with revilement.' Furthermore, because if one's own body is killed, one cannot avenge it in the present, it does not say 'retaliating against killing with killing.' From 'if one kills parents' onward, violating enmities against rulers and parents also has two: parents pertains to the domain of filial piety; rulers pertains to the domain of loyalty. Based on filial piety and loyalty, in principle one should take revenge. However, because enmities avenging enmities never come to an end, only through the absence of enmity does enmity cease. Therefore, the Tathāgata in his compassionate rescue instituted this strict rule; hence it says 'one must not add retaliation.' 2. From 'killing living beings to retaliate against living beings' onward explains violating principle and contravening practice. 'Living beings' is equivalent to life; meaning killing a life and returning revenge with a life; hence it says 'killing living beings to retaliate against living beings,' not repaying killing with living; this violates principle. 'Not according with filial piety' explains contravening practice. Question: In worldly propriety, if the enemy of one's ruler or father is not avenged, it is unfilial; why here is taking revenge unfilial? Answer: The spiritual and the worldly are opposites. The worldly is based on the present and does not speak of future karmic retribution of cause and effect. Now if one retaliates heavily, bitter karma multiplies, causing one's ruler and father to sink [into suffering] for eternal kalpas—how could that constitute filial piety? Moreover, why must these enemies not have been one's own parents in a previous life? If one kills them now, how could that constitute filial conduct? Hence it is said to not accord with filial piety. 3. From 'even not keeping' onward cites the minor to illustrate the major. Because in keeping male and female servants, bodily striking and verbal reviling arise along with anger and vexation, and among the transgressions of the three karmas, verbal karma is especially predominant, it says 'immeasurable verbal offenses.' This cites the minor as still incurring immeasurable offenses. Below it illustrates the major; hence it says 'how much more committing the offenses of the seven heinous acts?' In principle, the gravity of the offenses must be immeasurably difficult to redeem. 4. 'Yet one who has left household life' distinguishes the spiritual from the worldly. Within this, although the two ranks of householder and renunciant commit the same offense, when a renunciant commits this the fault is especially deep; thus it is singled out and emphasized again. Because one abandons worldly kinfolk to cultivate compassion and universally deliver, yet conversely takes revenge on behalf of kin, this contravenes practice to the utmost. 5. From 'intentionally committing' onward explains intentional violation adjudicating an offense; this can be known.